ing his unscrupulous sacrifice of truth to secure his object, the people then in Oregon should be held as deserving of a share in the censure which has attached to him. His course had been marked out for him by those who stood high in society, and who were leaders of the largest religious body in Oregon. He had been elected by a majority of the people. The people had been pleased and more than pleased with what he had done. When the alternative had been presented to them of condemning or endorsing him for this single action, their first impulse was to sustain the man who had shown himself their faithful servant, even in the wrong, rather than have his usefulness impaired. Almost the only persons to protest against the robbery of McLoughlin were those who were made to suffer with him. All others either remained silent, or wrote encouraging letters to Thurston, and as Washington was far distant from Oregon he was liable to be deceived.[1]
When the memorial and petition of the owners of lots in Oregon City, purchased since the 4th of March 1849, came before congress, there was a stir, because Thurston had given assurances that he was acting in accordance with the will of the people. But the memorialists, with a contemptible selfishness not unusual in mankind, had not asked that McLoughlin's claim might be confirmed to him, but only that their lots might not he sacrificed.
Thurston sought everywhere for support. While in Washington he wrote to Wyeth for testimony against McLoughin, but received from that gentleman only the warmest praise of the chief factor. Suspecting Thurston's sinister design Wyeth even wrote
- ↑ Thornton wrote several articles in vindication of McLoughlin's rights; but he was employed by the doctor as an attorney. A. E. Wait also denounced Thurston's course; but he also was at one time employed by the doctor. Wait said: 'I believed him (Thurston) to be strangely wanting in discretion; morally and politically corrupt; towering in ambition, and unscrupulous of the means by which to obtain it; fickle and suspicious in friendship; implacable and revengeful in hatred, vulgar in speech, and prone to falsehood.' Or. Spectator, March 20, 1851.
